Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

OG Loc wrote:I might be wrong, but I believe the ABA's change in multiple LSAT reporting policy (taking the high score instead of averaging them) didn't go into effect soon enough for the class of '10 to benefit.

Wut?

(1) Expressing my appreciation of an amusing meme

(2) If a member of a law school class had two or more LSAT scores, his school used to have to average them together when figuring his score into the overall class statistics. The policy now is to use only his highest score. The rule changed several years ago, I'm not sure exactly when. If it went into effect after the class of 2010 had applied but before the class of '11 had, it may partly account for Vanderbilt's, and other schools', increase in median LSAT.

Desert Fox wrote:my understanding that is that splitters do very well in law school

Uh, false?

There's no set of entering credentials that can accurately predict first year performance for an individual. I know plenty of splitters who took it in the teeth at law school. (And plenty who did well). Pick a characteristic and I probably know somebody with that characteristic who did great, who did poorly, and who finished right around median.

Desert Fox wrote:my understanding that is that splitters do very well in law school

Uh, false?

There's no set of entering credentials that can accurately predict first year performance for an individual. I know plenty of splitters who took it in the teeth at law school. (And plenty who did well). Pick a characteristic and I probably know somebody with that characteristic who did great, who did poorly, and who finished right around median.

Wow, take the whole "I'm going by some purely anecdotal evidence" caveat out, and THEN argue the point as if the person was wholeheartedly opposing you? Nice argumentative style.

Desert Fox wrote:my understanding that is that splitters do very well in law school

Uh, false?

There's no set of entering credentials that can accurately predict first year performance for an individual. I know plenty of splitters who took it in the teeth at law school. (And plenty who did well). Pick a characteristic and I probably know somebody with that characteristic who did great, who did poorly, and who finished right around median.

Wow, take the whole "I'm going by some purely anecdotal evidence" caveat out, and THEN argue the point as if the person was wholeheartedly opposing you? Nice argumentative style.

Desert Fox wrote:my understanding that is that splitters do very well in law school

Uh, false?

There's no set of entering credentials that can accurately predict first year performance for an individual. I know plenty of splitters who took it in the teeth at law school. (And plenty who did well). Pick a characteristic and I probably know somebody with that characteristic who did great, who did poorly, and who finished right around median.

Wow, take the whole "I'm going by some purely anecdotal evidence" caveat out, and THEN argue the point as if the person was wholeheartedly opposing you? Nice argumentative style.

I mean, dishonest, but nice.

I try to quote only the portion of the post that I'm directly responding to when I reply. It's not selective editing. Nothing I wrote changes based on the fact that DF noted his argument was based on a limited sample size. I'm not trying to Win The Internet or beat up on 0L, I'm sharing my experiences and correcting the record. We're all on the same side here.